The Southern Republican Leadership Conference wrapped up on Saturday afternoon after three days of speeches dripping with red-meat criticisms of Democrats and President Obama. This is par for the course for any party gathering, especially one where the party holding the shindig is on the outs.

But there was also something most unusual about the conference: an uncommon amount of talk and discussion of the United States Constitution. Ordinary people from all walks of life, not a constitutional scholar or lawyer among them, are actually trying to come to grips with the fundamental meaning and purpose of our founding document.

Has such a thing happened since the debates over ratification? If the numbers of tea partiers can be believed — and they were omnipresent at this gathering — perhaps millions of citizens are reading the Constitution and trying to place the actions taken by our government within the confines of our founding document’s strictures. And judging by the numerous conversations I had with delegates, bloggers, and just ordinary folk, there is a profound feeling of unease about not just what Obama and the Democrats have done to expand the power of the federal government, but Republicans as well. Contrary to what the left would like to establish as conventional wisdom — that the tea party movement is a wholly partisan operation — the anger people are demonstrating about spending is directed at both parties, almost equally.

But becoming emotional about spending is only a symptom of what bothers most people. If you start to talk to them about spending, inevitably the conversation will turn to the Constitution and their understanding of how that document should be interpreted.

How dare they, you might say. What do they know about 221 years of constitutional law? What do they know about the great and important decisions of the Supreme Court that have defined, redefined, and reinterpreted our founding document through the decades? How can they possibly intelligently address the minutiae, the subtlety, the beautiful strands of logic that have painstakingly been built up, layer upon layer, as our civilization has groped with ways to live together in justice and peace?

It may seem to some a quaint exercise in good citizenship for these millions to wrestle with the such convoluted and complex questions as the meaning and reach of the commerce clause or the constitutionality of the individual mandate to buy health insurance. The condescension is misplaced — and totally unwarranted.

The Constitution was not written in legalese despite the presence of so many lawyers at the Constitutional Convention. It was written in plain, accessible English so that the document could be read and understood by ordinary Americans. It was printed in newspapers, slapped on the walls near the village commons, and mailed far and wide. It was discussed in churches, in public houses, at family dinners, and between neighbors from New England to Georgia.

Never before in history had a country thought and debated itself into existence. When that generation of Americans looked at our founding document, could they have imagined that one day a congressman would say that the Constitution doesn’t matter? Or that congressmen could not answer the question of where in the Constitution did it authorize the federal government to force citizens to buy health insurance?

What does it matter today that ordinary people are reading and interpreting the Constitution in their own way, without reference to precedent or knowledge of specific court cases that have laid out the grid work upon which the powers and responsibilities of government have been constructed? After all, they can interpret the Constitution from here to doomsday and it won’t matter a fig to the Supreme Court. Those nine robed magistrates will work their will regardless of popular sentiment and, sometimes, common sense.

35 Comments, 24 Threads

1.
JB

I’m not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, but I have read the Constitution, even studied it a little back when they still taught civics in American schools.

It seems to me that the job of the Fed is to defend the nation, secure the borders, and deliver the mail on time. Everything else should be handled by the States. Congress, POTUS, and the Supreme Court are supposed to keep an eye on each other to ensure we are not enslaved, lately however, they have conspired to do exactly that.

Washington DC has become a giant black hole; sucking the life right out of our once beautiful country. I liked Sarah Palin’s line about using a “Good old fashioned” election to fix what’s wrong with Washington, and it’s just possible the citizenry is now angry enough to do it. Plus, I think, we really do need to set reasonable term limits on professional politicians.

I agree w/ Palin as well. I think the groundswell of hate for arrogance of Obama & liberal supermajority is far greater than any anger the country witnessed in 1994. I think the tsunami is coming in November.

Like many, I’m looking forward to November to generate a correction to the daily assaults on liberty emanating from D.C. these days. But, sadly, it will take much more than an election or two to straighten things out. It will require a wholesale change in the culture, especially in education. That appears to be beginning, but I’m not expecting any quick fixes.

Regards the November election; I am so tired of having to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I did not like John McCain but I knew he was less evil than Obama. I guess my problem is that I just really dislike professional politicians and would rather have a chance to put someone in office that has two ounces of common sense instead of a fancy law degree.

That said, it’s not often recognized that whom we elect into Congress is more important than who is President. Seeing that is just one of the (in this case minor) cultural changes I had in mind. Luckily, there are one or two in Congress who are not completely worthless. That ratio needs to be completely reversed.

Why, for example, is there one party that (very imperfectly) stands for freedom and capitalism and the other that stands for social democracy, i.e. moderate socialism? Both parties should be competing for how best to protect individual rights against external and internal violators, rather than how to most efficiently distribute largess coerced from some and given to others (all the while doing nearly everything possible to see that no new wealth is created).

But all that said, the ultimate solution does not lie in politics at all. Americans need to understand the proper thinking methods that lead to the correct ethics to support the right values. Neither of the two main groups have reached that level yet. One is largely static in that regard, the other retrogressing.

Thanks for your response to my comment, JB. I wish you and yours the very best future.

I think all establishment parties — and establishment thinkers — have not yet grasped the real promise of this movement. They’re far too busy mocking it. Bad ideas, insinuated into the status quo, got us into this generalized mess. Good ideas can begin to shake it loose.

Like JB, I’m neither a shcolar nor a lawyer but I think the one big mistake the Founders made was lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court. Maybe in their times, Judges were more inclined to apply the law than to make it up as they go. Maybe, with life expectancy around 47 years, they couldn’t foresee some judges holding sway over our country for 40 or 50 years.

And, yes, I realize they made this rule with the best of intentions but unfortunately the judges, almost from the offset, did not live up to expectations. Too many rulings by this body have expanded goverment power with no Constitutional basis. It doesn’t matter who we elect if a body of only 5 senile old political appointees can interpret the Constitution as “This is what they meant to say” and “This limitation or this right has not bearing in a global society.”

For the most part, I think the SC jumped the shark long ago. Maybe it’s this group who needs to justify their opinions on the plain language of the Constitution and quit relying on the mistakes their predecessors made. Precedents are merely prior decisions, not necessarily correct decisions. If they were all that they’re cracked up to be we’d still be holding Enron stock.

“did not live up to expectations” Your thinking is precisely why the founders did make them lifetime appointments. Once they are in office they need to be free of any political pressure. You are saying they should be replaced because you do not like their decisions. How gets to decide if they are making the right legal analysis? You? They are lifetime appointments so they can be protected from political changes. Look either you follow the constitution or you do not, but you do not get to pick and choose parts. That defeats the whole purpose.

More specifically, I just found Kiddie Konstitutionalism put in its place as long ago as the autumn of _Anno Religionismi_1356/1937/5676, as follows:

“Government was by theory so inefficient that it could never make money in business. If it did, it made money at the expense of private business, because it caused private businessmen to lose ‘confidence’ so that they could not make any money. This loss of confidence, according to these myths, prevented private bankers from loaning businessmen the necessary ‘private funds.’ If the Government instead of a bank ‘loaned’ them the funds, that led to ‘inflation.’ Uncontrolled private credit was not thought to be the cause of the inflation of 1929, or if it was, government credit would have led to more inflation. If anyone argued that properly controlled government credit might not lead to inflation, the answer was that credit could not be so controlled without changing our system of government. This the Constitution forbade, either because of its letter or spirit. ANY NEW THING, EVEN THOUGH NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION, ACQUIRED A CHARACTER OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY because new government activity was thought to lead to a ‘change in the system of government.’ The reason for this was that the ‘spirit of the Constitution’ was more important than the letter.

“Not only was the Government prevented from raising money pleasantly by the device of capitalizing its ‘assets,’ but in levying taxes public opinion demanded that it act as disagreeably as possible. Concealed taxes were regarded by liberals and conservatives alike as dangerous. They were the kind of things which ‘politicians’ were trying to put over in order to spend money and get votes. The ‘thinking man’ was not supposed to be fooled by this sort of thing. Direct taxation was the best, because people ‘felt’ it and this made them think twice before voting for a government which indulged in ‘waste.’ All this was simply a subconscious reaction to the notion that private organization was the only ….” &c. &c. [http://tinyurl.com/y9efvuj] [3]

Notice, Dr. Bones, how my learnèd mediæval was as fond of shudder-quotation as if he were scribbling _blogghiatura_ only yesterday. There is rather too much of it, actually, don’t you think?

By the way, Mr. Arnold seems also a tad affected in that he insists on describing his own present as if it were subject-matter from Ancient History 101, which is fine with me now that it really is, but must have seemed a bit odd to contemporaries. [4]

And I wish you, sir,
Healthy affordable days.

___
[1] _Rex in ætermum vivat_!

(( Actually, poor Tiger died in the year 727 of the Uncommon or Exceptional Era, 2816 years ago last Wednesday afternoon. [ http://tinyurl.com/h776j ] ))

[2] “[T]he chief importance of such utterances is to remind us, after all our talk of ‘periods’, that in
every age nearly every conceivable opinion is held by somebody: ‘
there have always’, says Sir Maurice Powicke, ‘been civilised men.’ The exceptions must not be allowed to obscure the general picture. Throughout the sixteenth century the great mass of those who seemed at the time to be sane, normal, practical men, ignored the few who spoke for liberty. The Church of Rome and the new churches retained the principle of theocracy. Jewel makes it a point in favour of the Church of England that she persecutes; Cardinal Allen makes it a point against her that she does not. (“You haue purposely repealed. . . all former laws of the Realme for burning heretiques, which smelleth of something I need not here expresse” (_True Sincere and Modest Defence_, _cap_. 3).) Martyrs on both sides would have been horrified if they had thought that their sufferings were going to encourage freedom of conscience. Search in the most capacious mind of that age for any echo of Browne’s wisdom and you will hear only the thin gaggle of Sir Andrew, ‘I had as lief be a Brownist as a politician’.” [ http://tinyurl.com/y8gqbj6 p. 41f.]

(( N. B. The Planet Dilbert subset of neokiddies must adore [ scribd.com ] whence I ‘borrowed’ that passage. Real John Galt country it is out there. Or call it “a perpetual Carnival of Copywrong”! ))

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, who on G*re’s green earth would ever, in any period, have lief to be Neocomrade R. Moran of the Big Management Party? A Moranist?!

[3] Speaking of copywrongs, sir: URL _cit_. is a G@@Gleswipe, but unlike with ScribdSwipe, getting away from G@@GLE with one’s swag as editable text is such a pain that ‘twas easier for me to deploy OCR on a legit hard copy of the _magnum opus_ of Arnold, Esq. And it really is pretty _magnum_, sir, even though the best of it is more than two hundred pages from the front cover.

[4] It is plain that right behind _The Folklore of Capitalism_ stands _The Theory of the Leisure Class_, a book which I have only read about, and not even much of that. Do you suppose, sir, that Herr Prof. Dr. Veblen exhibited these literary mannerisms?

Well, I am a lawyer, and a scholar, and I’ve taught as much Constitutional Law as Obama. (It was in a Law and Engineering class – I was an Assistant Adjunct Professor, which is exactly as impressive as it sounds, and according to the descriptions of Obama’s actual work, a fair description of what he did). I’ve found that ordinary citizens have a good grasp of the fundamental laws of our land. I think that is because Americans want “hunger and thirst for justice,” and take some responsibility for seeing it done.

I got news for you. The Democratic Party in Maryland tried it out. They found out that, with a big Democratic majority, they don’t have to pay attention to the Constitution at all. That’s because most people won’t sue to vindicate their rights. They have discovered that, if the issue is obscure enough, and affects few enough people, they can tell any old lie, and pass any old law, and make it stick. After that, it’s precedent. The current set of Democrats at the national level know what the problems are with this legislation: that’s why they admit they haven’t read it. To argue that the Constitution is not being complied with is irrelevant. Right now, the best remedy is at the ballot box.

Joe,
No need to have term limits on any officials, and the lifetime appointment serves the purpose of partially immunizing the Judges from faddish popular waves.
But what must not be forgotten is that appointed Judges serve “under good behavior” strictures, and are therefore subject to impeachment upon demonstrated malfeasance. Granted, it has rarely be done, but that too can change.
I’d suggest that the 9th Circuit should be examined carefully in this regard.
Restoration of Original Intent will resolve most of the issues, though to prevent societal upheaval, we must fund certain programs as they are grandfathered out, or enshrtined into the Constitution legitimately. There is no such thing as a “bench Amendment”.

Can we return to a Constitutional Government? I have thought long and hard on this subject. I do not know if it is even possible anymore. The number of decisions from the Supreme Court, especially relating the Commerce Clause, that started in the 1930′s have done so much to grow Government and allow Government intrusion how could we roll back this goliath? Let us say, for the sake of argument alone, that the Supreme Court knocks down the Health Care Bill using the Commerce Clause by making a broad ruling that says basically the job of the Federal Government is to make Regular Interstate Commerce and by that to remove impediments to Intersate Commerce. Such a ruling would overturn decades of previous rulings and overturn the ability of the Federal Government to do most of what it does today. How would we roll back these powers and monies collected to fund this back to the states. Would the government even follow such a ruling?

This is the real problem we are faced with. I do not think it is even possible for the Supreme Court to make such a ruling, not because it is not correct or consistent with a reading and understanding of the Constitution but because they know there is no way to impliment such a decision and it would probably be ignored. That is what the Supreme Court fears most is that a ruling might be ignored. With this President I believe that it is more possible that a Supreme Court decision might be ignored than any other time in history. He has already laid the political groundwork for such a move if he thinks it becomes needed.

In order to return to Constituitonal Government it would take decades of concentrated effort. This type of effort has never been seen before in any Industrialized scociety. It may be difficult but that is no reason not to try because the alternatives are too tragic to contemplate.

It is a relatively easy task to challenge the enormity of the Federal Behemoth, especially given the obvious limits in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Your time might be best spent, however, if you ask each proponent of limiting the Federal Behemoth whether they are prepared to live with the consequences of killing the Beast.

Every person who has gotten themselves into a budgetary mess– spending more than they earn– repeats to themselves that they must cut back on their spending. But when they take a hard look at it, they find that they cannot, somehow, bring themselves to make the hard choices; they cannot do without the frequent dining out; they cannot live without cable TV; they cannot drive a shabby car.

So it is with the Beast we have made. In your next article, it would be enormously beneficial if you would outline the specific Federal services that will be eliminated or devolved to the States. Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Unemployment insurance? These programs alone are eating up over 40 percent of the Federal budget (according to the Office of Management and Budget website). Defense takes another 20 percent. There is less than 30 percent of the budget left that is discretionary. Cut the Federal highway funds? Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

If Americans are prepared to do without the Federal largess, then we will truly be on the road to freedom. Otherwise, all the talk about the Constitution is interesting and educational but will, ultimately prove irrelevant.

C’mon JMA Publiuys Jr. how about doing a little more work of going for 30% more coherence and 30% less enigmatic juxaposition and association?

But I’ll try again with what follows, although maybe the gist of this article is that people do not want to do the heavy lifting of looking at the list I am suggesting, but would rather just open their windows and yell out to the world, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!!”

What Tea Partiers, and maybe all of us, need is a chronological list of one or two hundred events/laws/Presidential actions in American History which have moved us from where we were at the signing of the Constitution to where we are now. Each event should be followed by a brief commentary on why the “progression” was deemed necessary, and what the short and long term effects appear to have been. Of course, there will be little consensus on the effects. of many of the events (see Jacksonian Democracy, Civil War, Woodrow Wilson, or New Deal for starters) but just to understand that there is a much larger picture here than just Glenn Beck, or whoever, holding up the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and cherry-picked remarks of the Founders…against Obama-America 2010.
The Tea Partiers may well represent an emerging consensus that government somehow has to stop getting larger, but the study of history also seems to show that as population, corporations, and our general desire for security and services get larger, so does government; that is almost a given. How people will sort out that they want less of x, but not of y, and then deal with the fact that they also are threatened with loss of z, which they hadn’t even thought of, remains to be seen. Given the fact that Ronald Reagan was never able to actually reduce the size of anything in the Federal Government, people’s enthusiasm for a smaller Federal government seems a bit utopian, but that is not to say that you can’t slow things down. Good luck!

When this movement is accompanied by serious thought as to what a smaller more limited government will actually look like it is a good thing. I worry, however, that to some the Constituion is seen as divine revelation when in fact it was formed through the process of political compromise by practical men caught up in the issues of their day.

We can joke about all the gobbleygook in a modern legal opinion but did you know there is no limitation on who can serve on the Supreme Court in the Constitution? Nada about age or even citizenship much less having to be a published scholar from an elite law school. Except for the need to pick someone who can be confirmed by the Senate the next justice could even be a foreign citizen. Was this an oversight by the Founders? The sign of a more simple age before professionals had to have official credentials to practice? Or does it perhaps reflect the limited role they saw for the Court?

I’m afraid, “it’s not the Constitution, stupid” it never was. It’s the money, stupid, it always was/is/will be.

BHO and his gang have their hands in a $13 trillion dollar jar; does anyone in his/her right mind think for a minute that they will give that up (for, come on folks, someone’s reading of the….Constitution?)

They even bought for Romney and Paul their votes in New Orleans. They can buy anything they want; they even have Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and the other minion billionaires in their pockets. Spreading the wealth they did: they transferred $13 trillion into their pockets from the treasury and now they are “re-distributing” it to their friends and colleagues, in the biggest rape of the Public Treasury the world has ever seen.

And if $13 trillion dollars isn’t enough, not to worry, they’ll print some more money (or, put it differently, they will take some more from you and me).

I disagree that the founders would be baffled at all by anything that has happened today. If anything they would shake their heads knowingly, because they of all people knew and understood the weaknesses of humans, including themselves. And it was this frank and honest assessment of humankind that made the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights so strong and successful. It was this understanding of human nature and personal weaknesses that made George Washington the greatest President we have ever had, and quite probably one of the greatest men who ever lived. No one else has ever been able to control themselves and Stop a revolution. What we need most now is another frank and honest appraisal of human nature especially concerning the appeal and arrogance of power.
The Greeks had it right when they placed as many people as they could into the middle class and then placed their reliance for good decisions on that same middle class. The people do know what they want and what is good for them and to ignore that is nothing less than tyranny.

13. JF – “BHO and his gang have their hands in a $13 trillion dollar jar;…”

Absolutley. It’s also the deceitful manner by which Pelosi & Obama conduct business. How much debate in the media did you hear prior to Obama announcing his Nuc treaty with Russia? Or the open contempt for the legislative process when Obama announced he was NATIONALIZING a 2 Trillion business – Student Loans – to defray the costs of health care? And then call it deficit reduction?

Progressives insist that Obama is ‘only’ doing what Reagan did during the economic crises in the early 80′s when he took over. And further – ‘what he said he would’ when elected.

One difference – Reagan grew prosperity by SHRINKING GOVERNMENT. HE ALSO CAME TO OFFICE WITH AN OVERWHELMING ELECTORAL MANDATE – besides an economic crises. And he was clear about what he was doing and why. Plenty of people didn’t like it – and hated the risks involved – BUT THEY KNEW WHAT WAS COMMING. It wasn’t about stealth and deception.

Obfuscation. Deceit. These are the hallmarks of one party rule under Pelosi & Obama. When Reagan was negotiating with the Soviets we had near nightly coverage FOR YEARS – & the same with every president before him back to Nixon. With Obama it’s a celebration at the signing – and now in the aftermath there is some debate – over whether it’ll get senate confirmation.

How quaint – our national nuclear policy is changed and we get told AFTER THE FACT – at the end of the process – prior to senate confirmation.

The arrogance of Pelosi & Obama is the arrogance of the professional; it’s not a partnership (a ‘crises is a terrible thing to waste’ & ‘elections have consequences’ as evident mantra’s) – and increasingly it’s less and less a democratic display of anything but – ‘we’re the professionals & we know best and we are in charge’. Autocratic statism on steroids.

This has driven the constitutional discussions in my view. It’s the ultimate ‘square one.’ People recognize the country is in a deep hole – debt in numbers it’s hard to even grasp – and they expect politicans first off to stop digging – and secondly – to grasp something – THE CONSTITUTION – that provides some starting point to provide a sense of clarity – a roadmap if you will for recovery.

The great tragedy is that all this fear and loathing is a direct result of George W Bush’s second term – fiscal irresponsibility by conservatives in power to lead and deliver – opening the door to Obama and Pelosi to push the ressurrection of big government.

Mike Pense and Gingrich among other speakers – Haley Barbour as well – did a smack job at this conference to deliver that the message has been received loud and clear. That the ressurection of the Republican Party is not yet an accomplished feat – but rather A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO FEND OFF THE ASSULT.

Haley said it best – to stay together -resist fragmentation – recruit competent conservatives to replace Pelosi & ‘repeal & restore’ – in concert with what the people are clamoring for.

It certainly helps that Rick Perry, Haley Barbour & Bobby Jindal represent states that are leading the country out of recession – despite the pernicious effects of Obama and Washington.

So these southern Republicans are “now” so worried about spending? Are these the same ones that voted time and again take the surplus they had ten years ago and turn into record spending by 2006? Spendig billions on wars and foreign aid for the middle east? …Those guys? And now they say they are concerned about spending?…really? Well, then I would like some of the same thing they been getting from their doctors. Ron Paul was the only one of them that was honest about their .. so called .. concern for spending if I remember correctly.

‘Those guys…”???? – Poor Citizen has a poor memory as well as a tired and poor argument. Besides five or so DOING TIME IN THE FEDERAL PEN by last count – Pelosi & crew has had 2 congressional cycles and one presidential. She’s terrified enough former party crossovers as to ressurrect the GOP.

What exactly is your point PC? The buyers remorse from Independents is a bogus manufactured lie? Or are the mounting numbers of retiring DEM’s a refection of a job well done?

Poor Citizen, even though I think maybe you are too dumb to understand I will point out why your argument (so often referred to – though, it isn’t really an argument) is completely stupid. Say you are on the freeway in a car pool going to work. The speed limit is 55. The driver is trying to make up time and speeds up to 80. Everybody (or a majority of them at least) decides this driver is too reckless and another needs to have a go. The new driver then proceeds to drive 120 down the freeway. Do you think that reminding the passengers about the first driver solves anything?

The rest of us are just as capable of interpreting the Constitution as “Constitutional scholars”. Our politicians and lawyers like to present the law as if it is an esoteric field beyond the understanding of mere laymen, like aerospace engineering or medicine. But the average citizen is not going to be called on to design a stealth fighter or perform a heart bypass. We are, however, expected to understand and follow the law and we are all fully capable of reading English. Every time a “scholar” or politician announces some bizarre interpretation of the Constitution, the rest of us should stand up and say “show me where it says that!”

Perhaps this problem coming out of Washington cannot be solved in Washington — the Supreme Court included as it is part of central government.

The accumulation of power by the central government threatens federalism. It seemed we are heading in the direction of states becoming administrative districts of the central government. This is not the American tradition of the 10th amendment —- a perspective that the states and their people are the originating source of political power in the federal system.

If the ideological balance of the Supreme Court were liberal, it wouldn’t matter how many lawsuits were brought about the constitutionality of Obamacare; there would be no remedy for the continued destruction of federalism. The divinations of constitutional scriptures, by appointed liberal doctors of law, would only will bring pronouncements of what they want the “living constitution” to mean

The political focus on the upcoming elections should be what’s happening at the state level —– the elections in the state houses and governors. Sure, conservatives elected to Congress is a very important, but I see this as a larger issue besides what is happening in Washington, and beyond the scope of Washington to resolve.

This represents a real opportunity: states and their people calling for a constitutional convention to reaffirm the Federalist system with its original perspective, that the ultimate source of political power resides with states and its people.

This would be the greatest political show on Earth. Much of the younger generation in America has come to accept the Supreme Court as final authority in the order of an ecclesiastical appointment of infallibility. The intense debate would be the most important achievement because it would bring focus on the constitution and original American traditions. People would start reading the Constitution and consider its historical traditions. I would see a real possibility of a renewal in the perspective by younger generations in our country.

This would also be a great spectacle for the rest of the world— for people of grassroots to rise up and say that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, will make final arbitration what is constitutional and what is not on the issue of federalism. This would be quite disconcerting to autocrats of every stripe.

Another accomplish would be an amendment with some sort of mechanism that the states could void the encroachment by the federal government (Supreme Court included) by a 60% vote. Otherwise, the power of the federal government (Supreme Court concluded) remains superior to the states in powers delegated by the Constitution to the central government.

Federalism allows the states the prerogative to develop social welfare to the full bankrupting profligacy they wish to — or remain conservative in the small government, free-market me perspective.

I bought 50 pocket copies of the Declaration and Constitution (one document) for my daughter’s 5th grade social studies class. They’re only fifty cents each. I urge everyone who can to buy some copies and distribute them to schools, friends, family, and coworkers.

Rich Moran – The powers and sovereignty of the Federal government began the Constitution. That is unlike the states whose powers and sovereignty preceded the Constitution. If our Congressmen wish to shred the Constitution that’s fine, because they are shredding the decoument that gives them their powers. The states need to rise up and fight back. If they do not, then the Constitution becomes a meaningless document and we are no longer a Federal republic.

you said:“fairness,” or “social justice,” or “to help those less fortunate,” or “to level the playing field” in economic matters. All of these things are worthy goals.
No, they are NOT worthy goals of government. They shouldn’t be the business of government at all. In the final analysis, government is force. You have no right to force others to pay for your goals. In a free society, if you want to help someone no one will – or should – stop you. But do your helping with your resources and those who voluntarily agree with you. Do not use the police power of the state to make yourself feel better about someone else’s situation.

Listed in the the Canadian Charter of Rights, Part One, Fundamental Freedoms, Section Two:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

CANADA NO LONGER HAS THE FOLLOWING:

FREE SPEECH (I refer to the banning of Ann Coulter)
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS (I refer to Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant and the Mohammad cartoons)
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, (political correctness has killed that)
PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY (pro-Israel rallies are routinely broken up while Canadian flag burning Moslems do so with the police looking on)
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, all-white cultural organizations and pride groups are illegal yet multicultural (ie NON-WHITE) parades, month-long celebrations/festivals and events are sponsored by the tax-payer (I don’t recall being asked if I wanted my tax dollars to fund the annual month-long ASIAN festival each May)

We lost our freedoms long ago. I hope that America will look to the north and not let that happen to you.

It’s been done in the name of “fairness,” or “social justice,” or “to help those less fortunate,” or “to level the playing field” in economic matters. All of these things are worthy goals.

Really? When they rob from Peter to pay Paul? How is it right for government to take from me to give to the “less fortunate” yet if I were to rob say Senator Kerry with all his wealth to buy myself a much needed new car so that I can continue to go to work I’d go to jail? Theft is theft regardless of whether or not its the individual citizen or a the IRS.

That is where you’ve ceded the argument and the moral ground and have lost the argument to the left. You’ve already excepted the premise that the ends justify the means.